[governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] A digital cold war? (The Economist)

[michael gurstein]

-----Original Message-----
From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf
Of Dewayne Hendricks
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:17 PM
To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] A digital cold war?

A digital cold war?
Dec 14th 2012
<http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/12/internet-regulation?fsrc=scn
/tw_ec/a_digital_cold_war_>

THE International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has always prided itself on
being one of the most pragmatic organisations of the United Nations.
Engineers, after all, speak a similar language, regardless where they come
from. Even during the cold war they managed to overcome their differences
and negotiate the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR), a
binding global treaty that even today governs telecommunications between
countries.

But the internet seems to be an even more divisive than cold-war ideology.
The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai,
where the ITU met to renegotiate the ITR, ended in failure in the early
hours of November 14th. After a majority of countries approved the new
treaty, Terry Kramer, the head of the American delegation, announced that
his country is "not able to sign the document in its current form." Shortly
thereafter, at least a dozen countries-including Britain, Sweden and
Egypt-signalled that they would not support the new treaty either.

The main issue was to what extent the internet should feature in the treaty.
America and its allies wanted to keep it from being so much as
mentioned-mainly out of fear that any reference to it whatsoever would
embolden governments to censor the internet and meddle with its
infrastructure. For some time a compromise among the more the 600 delegates,
who were confined to an oppressive convention hall, seemed possible: the
binding ITR would indeed hardly make any mention of the internet, but China,
Russia and many Arab countries would get a non-binding resolution on the
internet (with the awkward title "To foster an enabling environment for the
greater growth of the Internet").

Yet this package did not fly-because for America both the ITR and the
resolution crossed several red lines. One section of the draft treaty calls
for the regulation of "unsolicited bulk electronic communication", commonly
known as "spam". But prohibiting spam in an international treaty, the
Americans argue, would require some definition of the kind of content
intended-which could thereby limit the freedom of expression. Russia also
insisted that the relevant entities in the treaty be defined as "operating
agencies", which would include internet services providers (ISPs) and other
internet firms. (America wants the entities to be classed as "recognised
operating agencies", code for old-style telecommunication carriers.)

America's willingness to stand up for the internet should be welcomed. But
it has to be said that in doing so it is also defended its interests: no
other country benefits as much from the status quo in the online world.
Since much of the internet's infrastructure is based in America and most of
its traffic zips through it, America is in a unique position to eavesdrop,
should it be so inclined. America's internet firms also capture most of the
profit pool of the online industry.

Only the host country had a larger delegation than America, which sent more
than 120 people to Dubai. The American representatives included officials
from the department of defence as well as from internet firms like Facebook
and Google. It was not just for fear that it might have a chilling effect on
freedom of expression that America did not want the word "security" included
in the treaty-it also has a stake in keeping other countries from catching
up in such matters. And America's negotiators were not just worried about a
digital divide when they pushed back hard against any attempts by European
telecoms operators to introduce language about internet charges. The
proposed changes could have helped the European firms in their efforts to
get big internet firms to pay them for passing on their traffic.

The immediate impact of the WCIT's failure will be minor. Despite the
opposition from America and its allies, the ITU will have the remaining
countries sign the new treaty on Friday-in the hope that the other member
states will come around eventually. What is more, the treaty may be binding,
but a new version will have to be ratified by the ITU's member states, which
can take a couple of years. And it is not clear how it can be enforced.

[snip]

Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <http://www.warpspeed.com/wordpress>

 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t